DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Private parking tickets
*****************************************************
#Post#: 33592--------------------------------------------------
Bristol Airport IAS Case - VCS
DIR By: acrylicus
Date: August 16, 2024, 7:36 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I was issued a parking fine by VCS for stopping on an access
road just outside the short-stay parking exit at Bristol
Airport. I had paid for parking already, and only stopped to
fetch a bottle of milk from the boot for my infant son who had
just woken up as we left the car-park. I handed the bottle of
milk to my wife who was sitting in the back passenger seat next
to my sons car seat.
I appealed this, and this was their response:
HTML https://imgur.com/a/RqvSTbT
Which is false, so I took it to IAS.
My initial appeal:
--- Quote ---
> After going to the airport to pick up my father in law, I
parked my car and paid the £8 parking fee. Upon leaving the car
park, my infant son woke up and began crying as he had not had
his milk due to napping on the long drive to the airport.
>
> This incident occurred moments after me leaving the car-park.
I stopped for a moment to get the milk out of the boot of the
car.
>
> I chose a road to stop on that had no 'no stopping' signs
visible. It was far away from the terminal, and posed no safety
issues as it was a very quiet road.
>
> Given I have paid for the parking, and only stopped due to a
crying infant, in an area with no safety concerns and far away
from the terminal - I believe this is fair grounds to levy a
dismissal of the fine I have been issued.
>
> Their denial states: "A review of our CCTV evidence has
confirmed that on the date in question, your vehicle stopped to
collect a passenger on the access road where restrictions
apply". This is wholly a lie. If they had truly reviewed the
CCTV footage they would see I got out the car to get a bottle
for my son.
>
> I have attached my bank statement showing the £8 paid parking
fee, which shows the payment as processed on the 15 July (The
actual payment was the 13th, but as this was a weekend it shows
as processed on the 15th).
>
> The no-stopping areas surrounding the terminal are to stop
people from avoiding the drop-off/pickup fees. I paid the fees.
>
> They have outright lied on their appeal denial, I paid for
parking, and I only stopped to manage my infant son.
--- End Quote ---
Their response:
--- Quote ---
> 1. Bristol Airport and all its approach roads are private land
which motorists are allowed to enter provided that they agree to
the Terms and Conditions of use. There are 81 signs on site, at
the entrance and throughout the roadways, which state ‘No
Stopping' or ‘No Drop Off or Pick up'. The entrance signage
clearly states motorists will become liable for a charge of £100
if they contravene these Terms and Conditions.
>
> 2. Site photographs supplied confirm the signs can clearly be
observed and the entrances and throughout the site. The
adjudicator will note that the VCS signage onsite, including its
wording and positioning has been audited by the IPC, has passed
audit, complies with the IPC Code of Practice and is deemed fit
for purpose.
>
> 3. Airports are by their very nature, sensitive, high risk
security areas, which are always on a high level security alert
status. Given the sensitive security issues at airport sites it
is not unusual to prohibit stopping of any kind on all the
approach roads.
>
> 4. A no stopping zone has been introduced on the airport
approach roads and, due to growing congestion caused by vehicles
stopping and blocking lanes. The subsequent congestion has
created safety risks for other motorists and potential costly
delays for emergency vehicles responding to incidents at the
Airport. This CN was issued in respect of a vehicle stopping on
a private road running alongside a busy international airport.
Any vehicles obstructing the roads, no matter for how long can
cause serious problems for airport traffic, including cargo and
emergency vehicles. Vehicle Control Services (VCS) Ltd patrol,
manage and enforce on the access roads and bus stops, where
stopping is not permitted and seek to do so by making motorists
aware of the requirements with signs.
>
> 5. The CCTV stills supplied show that the vehicle stopped on
an access road which is designated by the landowner as a
restricted area, where stopping is prohibited at all times for
unauthorised purposes.
>
> 6. A review of the footage we possess shows the appellant's
vehicle stationary when first observed, remaining stationary for
approx. 20 seconds before driving away. During this time, the
driver is seen outside of the vehicle, the passenger door (which
was open at the start of the footage) is closed and the driver
then re-enters the vehicle. We are unable to supply the CCTV
footage due to GDPR as other vehicles are visible, however
appellant does not dispute that they stopped and exited their
vehicle in this location.
>
> 7. The circumstances cited by the appellant do not warrant
grounds for the cancellation of this charge. It is a motorist's
sole responsibility to ensure they are prepared for their onward
journey before beginning their journey, particularly if they are
exiting a car park onto a restricted area where stopping for any
reason is prohibited. The appellant denies that they stopped to
pick up a passenger and while the footage does not show that a
passenger entered the vehicle, the passenger door was open.
Regardless, the charge was not issued for picking up a passenger
but for stopping in the restricted area. Whether the appellant
stopped to tend to their child or to pick a passenger up, they
had no cause to believe they were authorised to do so.
>
> 8. The appellant states “The intention of the no-stop here i
believe is to stop people from avoiding the pickup/drop-off
charge”. We can confirm the signage on site clearly states “No
Stopping” and makes clear that stopping for any reason, not
solely for pick up/drop off purposes is prohibited.
>
> 9. The contract between the appellant and VCS was formed when
the motorist entered the site. When entering this private land,
a motorist freely enters into an agreement to abide by the
conditions advertised in return for permission to enter. It is
the motorist's responsibility to ensure that they abide by any
clearly displayed terms and conditions. It is clear that the
terms and conditions stated ‘No Stopping' otherwise the motorist
would face liability for a Charge Notice.
>
> 10. The position of the appellant's vehicle can be observed in
the supplied annotated signage map and annotated vehicle
location which highlight the proximity of the appellant's
vehicle to VCS signage. We would reiterate that this site and
its signage have passed audit by the International Parking
Community (IPC).
>
> 11. A helpline telephone number (open 24 hours per day) is
clearly displayed on all VCS signage for any motorist
experiencing difficulty. This was not utilised by the appellant.
Had the appellant contacted us as soon as was practical and
brought the matter to our attention, it is possible provision
could have been made. It is not possible to make provision for
motorists after the fact.
>
> 12. The pertinent point in this case is that the appellant,
having been given sufficient notice of the terms and conditions
in place, freely chose to stop their vehicle on this roadway
where stopping for this purpose is prohibited all times.
Ultimately, when entering this private land it was the sole
responsibility of the motorist to fully comply with the clearly
advertised contractual terms and conditions, by their failure to
do so the appellant became liable for the CN, which was lawfully
issued.
>
> 13. By stopping in a zone where stopping was prohibited the
appellant became liable for the Charge Notice issued as per the
Terms and Conditions displayed.
--- End Quote ---
And in my final response:
--- Quote ---
> The items uploaded in response to my appeal do not
substantiate their false claim of me "stopping to collect a
passenger". Further, I have submitted proof of paid parking in
the form of a bank statement.
>
> My initial appeal remains valid, and so far no evidence at all
has been provided to the contrary.
--- End Quote ---
I feel stupid for sending that final response now, having only
learned about this website AFTER I had submitted it. As I am
sure I could have crafted something a lot better than what I
did.
I am waiting for arbitration now, but I fear I will 'lose'.
Do I have any further recourse?
#Post#: 33597--------------------------------------------------
Re: Bristol Airport IAS Case - VCS
DIR By: slapdash
Date: August 17, 2024, 2:33 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Are you prepared to await a court claim where, if you lose, it
will be a bit over £200. (There will no CCJ provided it is paid
in time after judgement) ?
Arbitration is a mediation as an alternative to a hearing to try
and find settlement. You are risking more than £100 by then.
The charge is against the driver, you have owned up to who the
driver is so that option is gone unfortunately.
Currently I assume they are asking for £100 and haven't offered
the discount again.
Will a judge, with a properly crafted defence, decide that was
an adequate reason. There will be many views but is 60 or 100 V
220 or zero (and you need time to attend etc).
There is a possibility that the land is subject to airport
bylaws, in which case a properly crafted defence should win
because this is not an appropriate remedy.
If you are minded to pursue it then copies of the notices and
details of the exact location (slightly awkward with Google maps
being out of date with all the building work going on). There is
a helpful thread with detail of how to post the pictures and
street view link if you need a little help.
#Post#: 33598--------------------------------------------------
Re: Bristol Airport IAS Case - VCS
DIR By: b789
Date: August 17, 2024, 2:44 am
---------------------------------------------------------
What a pity you had not discovered this site before you
blundered into their trap. In future, the keeper must not, ever,
ever, ever, EVER, identify the driver. There is no legal
obligation to do so to an unregulated private parking company.
All you had to do in your initial appeal was tell VCS to go
rotate on a sharp stick as the land is under statutory control
which means that they cannot hold the known keeper liable for
the unknown drivers alleged breach of contract.
There is no “fine” or “penalty” because no “offence” has been
committed and VCS are no “authority” of any kind. They are
simply a private company of ex clamper thugs. However, the known
keeper has identified the unknown driver who is now known.
Your appeal to the IAS is a wasted effort. They are not going to
uphold your appeal. You have identified as the driver and they
will hold you liable.
The only way you are going to resolve this is at the ultimate
dispute resolution service… the small claims track at the county
court where the only truly independent arbiter, a judge, will
decide whether you owe VCS a debt.
For now, show us on a Google map satellite view EXACTLY where
the vehicle was stopped. There is a slight possibility that the
location is outside of VCSs area of control. Please show us the
NtK that was received. We will try and pick through it for any
technical failures but having identified the driver is the
equivalent of of shooting your self in both feet.
#Post#: 33599--------------------------------------------------
Re: Bristol Airport IAS Case - VCS
DIR By: acrylicus
Date: August 17, 2024, 4:01 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Here is the NTK (with PPI redacted)
HTML https://imgur.com/a/ZgeVeFc
I stopped here:
HTML https://www.google.com/maps/@51.3881896,-2.715025,3a,75y,74.49h,77.83t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sYn8miUgn0RU119SlPtH0sg!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DYn8miUgn0RU119SlPtH0sg%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D14.6192875%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656?coh=205409&entry=ttu
This is what they have submitted as their evidence (as-well as a
bunch of PDFs of their signs)
HTML https://imgur.com/a/a0K5lYB
I really didnt see any signs from the exit of the car-park to
the location I stopped. The sign they highlighted is facing the
other way (Yes I stopped on the wrong side of the road lol...)
#Post#: 33600--------------------------------------------------
Re: Bristol Airport IAS Case - VCS
DIR By: b789
Date: August 17, 2024, 4:09 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Please show the exact location on a satellite map, not GSV, so
that we can compare the location with VCSs contract with the
airport.
#Post#: 33602--------------------------------------------------
Re: Bristol Airport IAS Case - VCS
DIR By: acrylicus
Date: August 17, 2024, 4:28 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Here is the exact location
HTML https://maps.app.goo.gl/aNy7KUB6CAe6YBqm7
#Post#: 33608--------------------------------------------------
Re: Bristol Airport IAS Case - VCS
DIR By: b789
Date: August 17, 2024, 5:16 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Here is a page from VCSs contract with Bristol Airport that
shows the area they are authorised to issue PCNs. This copy of
the contract expired on 6th January 2023. They would be required
to provide a copy of the latest contract if they were to try and
take this to court.
HTML https://i.imgur.com/l4HKPeR.jpeg
Compare that with your map location:
HTML https://i.imgur.com/Viuay2g.jpeg
#Post#: 33613--------------------------------------------------
Re: Bristol Airport IAS Case - VCS
DIR By: slapdash
Date: August 17, 2024, 6:25 am
---------------------------------------------------------
In the bylaws:-
-------
6.2 Parking in time restricted areas
leave or park a vehicle or cause it to wait for a period in
excess of the permitted
time in an area where the period of waiting is restricted by
notice.
6.3 Parking in prohibited areas
wait leave or park a vehicle where waiting or parking is
prohibited by notic
------
Also under penalties:-
-----
3.4 any other byelaws shall not exceed level 3 on the standard
scale
in each case as the standard scale has effect from time to time
by virtue either
of Section 37 (2) of the Criminal Justice Act 1982 or of an
order under section
143 of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980.
----
I think this covers the offence (*bylaws)
It looks like op turned left leaving the drop off car park (that
area down there used to be a staff car park). It looks covered
by the VCS contract IF op was not beyond the roundabout (their
pin is).
But it seems very unlikely it is not covered by the airport
bylaws (easy find on line).
Unfortunately I have never been able to find a map of the area
covered. It's not in the bylaws or described therein.
#Post#: 33616--------------------------------------------------
Re: Bristol Airport IAS Case - VCS
DIR By: b789
Date: August 17, 2024, 6:40 am
---------------------------------------------------------
But the bylaws are not being applied. Had the keeper not
identified the driver, the standard appeal would have explained
it to the intellectually malnourished scammers at VCS that they
had no case, even though they will take it as far as a claim in
the county court, in the hope that the keeper is low-hanging
fruit on the gullible tree and eventually capitulate once it
reached the litigation stage.
What the keeper should have appealed is as follows, simple and
self explanatory, putting VCS on notice that they are not
dealing with the likes of the majority of their victims who fund
the scam:
--- Quote ---
> I am the registered keeper. VCS cannot hold a registered
keeper liable for any alleged contravention on land that is
under statutory control. As a matter of fact and law, VCS will
be well aware that they cannot use the PoFA provisions because
Bristol Airport is not 'relevant land'.
>
> If Bristol Airport wanted to hold owners or keepers liable
under Airport Byelaws, that would be within the landowner's gift
and another matter entirely. However, not only is that not
pleaded, it is also not legally possible because VCS is not the
Airport owner and your 'parking charge' is not and never
attempts to be a penalty. It is created for VCS's own profit (as
opposed to a byelaws penalty that goes to the public purse) and
VCS has relied on contract law allegations of breach against the
driver only.
>
> The registered keeper cannot be presumed or inferred to have
been the driver, nor pursued under some twisted interpretation
of the law of agency. Your NtK can only hold the driver liable.
VCS have no hope at POPLA, so you are urged to save us both a
complete waste of time and cancel the PCN.
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 33619--------------------------------------------------
Re: Bristol Airport IAS Case - VCS
DIR By: slapdash
Date: August 17, 2024, 6:49 am
---------------------------------------------------------
How has identifying the driver suddenly morphed a criminal
offence under those bylaws into a contractual dispute.
How can a driver enter into a contract to commit a criminal act
in exchange for payment?
I must be missing something.
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 2
DIR Next Page